From 5ddc6d4e30f4e8701af661601ca07abdfc237996 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Viresh Kumar Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:35:48 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Use has_target() instead of !setpolicy For code consistency, use has_target() instead of !setpolicy everywhere, as it is already done at several places. Maybe we should also use "!has_target()" instead of "cpufreq_driver->setpolicy" where we need to check if the driver supports setpolicy, so to use only one expression for this kind of differentiation. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 8caec5211726..555a62646491 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ static int cpufreq_parse_policy(char *str_governor, } /** - * cpufreq_parse_governor - parse a governor string only for !setpolicy + * cpufreq_parse_governor - parse a governor string only for has_target() */ static int cpufreq_parse_governor(char *str_governor, struct cpufreq_policy *policy) @@ -1303,7 +1303,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) policy->max = policy->user_policy.max; } - if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) { + if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) { policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu); if (!policy->cur) { pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__); @@ -2402,7 +2402,7 @@ void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu) * BIOS might change freq behind our back * -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change */ - if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy && + if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target() && (cpufreq_suspended || WARN_ON(!cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy)))) goto unlock; -- 2.25.1